- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I see many photos on IceNetwork that I would like to have. Why would they make it impossible to save them? Is there any way to save them? Are these photos available anywhere else? Any help would be appreciated!
IceNetwork Photos
- Thread starter TartanSk8ter01
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
IN has copyrighted those pictures, so using them for anything other than looking at them yourself would violate their copyright. They should not be used on fansites & so forth. If you want to use their photos for something other than personal enjoyment, you should contact them and ask them what it would cost you for the use you desire.
They make it difficult to save the pictures because they make money by selling memberships, by selling advertisements, and yes, if they can, by selling the rights to use their pictures and videos. They have a right to do so, since they paid the photographer to take the pictures, or bought the pictures from the photographer. Why should they give away for free what they paid for?
They make it difficult to save the pictures because they make money by selling memberships, by selling advertisements, and yes, if they can, by selling the rights to use their pictures and videos. They have a right to do so, since they paid the photographer to take the pictures, or bought the pictures from the photographer. Why should they give away for free what they paid for?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
Um the reason would be that the Hartvaths and other amazing photographers own the rights to the photographs. They are employed/given the status of official photog and so the USFSA/IceNetwork have exclusive rights. As Doris said - any use of them other than viewing them violates those copyright laws. The photogs want to make sure people aren't getting those pics and printing them for free. It's their right. (and one I would defend to the end as a fellow photographer)
look up the photographers or USFSA's contact and see if you can get a copy of it. You'll probably pay through the nose, but it's the price of what owning a photo is worth.
look up the photographers or USFSA's contact and see if you can get a copy of it. You'll probably pay through the nose, but it's the price of what owning a photo is worth.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
Thanks for responding to my questions. I was curious because other websites make some photos available.
I was thinking of joining Icenetwork to see the competitions; is access to those photos part of the deal when you join?
Thanks, again.
I was thinking of joining Icenetwork to see the competitions; is access to those photos part of the deal when you join?
Thanks, again.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
You certainly get to see the photos, but you don't get to copy them with a membership. Also, some of the content is geoblocked outside the US.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
I'm not sure which sites just give free use to photographs. AP and other news sources give very low quality copies online and they aren't protected, but that doesn't mean anyone has the right to distribute them to profit without a contract. Nor is it okay to just take and print away. There are also less that creditable websites that claim the property as their own when it's not...
just because it's not protected from right clicking doesn't make it right.
just because it's not protected from right clicking doesn't make it right.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2004
I disagree with Toni. This is a very interesting point that I feel strongly about. Many photogs post photos on-line so that others can see them and enjoy them, and for other reasons. Most are, what others consider, low quality. If I post a photo and someone wants it by right clicking so they can share it or look at it later, then what is the difference between that and viewing it on line? Selling it or profiting by it or not giving a credit is another story. Removing the watermark is also wrong. But I have downloaded many photos for my own enjoyment and dont feel bad about it. I also record radio shows so I can listen to them in my car. I think photogs that want their web shots protected can do that..nothing wrong with that...if you dont want people to see your work for free, then why are you posting it in the first place? If it is a paid for site, then protect your work. Which is what Icenetwork does.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
Seeing my work and printing my work are two different things entirely, and there are tons of ways to get around all the protection online. Doesn't make it right. By all means VIEW for free, but give a few bucks to the photog and get a good quality print so that it is treated correctly. I've had my pictures taken and used in all sorts of ways that I never gave permission for. There ARE ways around the rightclick protect. People know how to do it. It's WRONG. It's stealing.
Ice Network, yes, displays them - they don't distribute them. Enjoy them on the website. Contact photogs to get rights to print or save the photo. Not that hard.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2004
Interesting views on viewing vs printing. I dont print pics hardly at all....no reason to for my usages....if one of my air racing photog friends puts a great pic up on an air racing forum, I always ask them first if I can include it in any DVD I might make of my own pics I took that I send to friends and that is fair. I had no idea there were ways to get around on line protection. In my opinion, if someone uses some tool to do that, then they are just as guilty as the person who illeagly downloads songs. If I see a great painting at a gallery, I always ask first before I take a picture of it...I know the rules for the gallery. If an artist puts their painting up at the gallery, they should make clear what they expect and know the rules. I never have been told that, If I am allowed to take a pic of a painting, I cant print it out, however...
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
that's because YOU are the photographer of the painting.
I'm not saying photogs will 100% of the time charge a fee - but if you really want to respect the person who took time to take the photo, edit and upload the pic - contact them and ASK. I've given many athletes use of my photos free of charge. The jerk who broke the rules and took my photos and put them on their site with no contact to me and not credit of who took the photos? Yeah, not so much. :disapp:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2004
Well, we can agree on that last statement! The webmaster for Ryan Bradley's site asked to use my pics and of course I let her...taking someone's photos and posting them on a website without permission is wrong, and most websites have advertising so in a way they are using the pics for bucks. Technology is creating all sorts of interesting situations. 50 years ago, if I wanted to quote an author in an article I was writing for bucks about, say, the fallicy that diamonds had any real value beyond their industial uses, all I had to do was put in the quote, and attribute it to the writer. In a sense, I "stole" their work without asking permission, but it was and as far as I know, is completely legal. So what is the difference between that and taking someone's pic, cropping a detail from it, posting it and adding a credit? Beats me. But I do think it is right to ask.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
read copyright law... not that hard.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
There's a difference between fair use and copyright infringement. I'm a researcher, and I cite other people's work all the time. I don't snip out parts of their work and pretend they're mine, though. I'm happy to have other people use my work so long at they cite it properly, and while academic research is not commercial photography, you don't just take credit for other people's work in either context. Some photographers will allow you to use their materials without compensation - just credit (see on Flickr and Creative Commons) but the bottom line is, they get to decide, not the person who wants to use their work.
One thing that is very clear is that many people do not understand the difference between plagiarizing or infringing on someone's copyright and actual fair use (the Judith Griggs story from last year being a prime example).
FWIW, I don't think IN has the copyright for most of the photos they use; looks to me like the competition photos they feature are licensed by other sources, such as AFP or Getty, and I'm sure the licensing agreements cover what IN can and cannot do with them. The backstage stuff is likely their own.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2004
Hey, Buttercup, thanks for that link....very interesting....you seem to be very correct that some people dont understand the diff between copyright and fair use, as witnessed by the different lawyers argueing in different courts and getting different opinions!!!!!!! I think that pretty well proves my point that the rapid growth of technology is bluring the old pre-tech laws . And the fact that the internet is world wide further blurs things as different countrys have different views on fair use. Reminds me of the headaches now for drug companies that patent laws that differ from country to country....good info....
